Hiring Disparity
-
I've not seen "IT Director" in the UK, but a Directory within IT I've seen all over there. But real Directors with SVPs under them and hundreds or thousands of total staff with hundreds of millions in budgets.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Director of IT has become a joke of a title in the US, but it is super common and seems to be growing more and more. I bet if you got a survey of people in SW you'd find that something like 5% or more of SMB people use that title to mean "the lone IT guy doing helpdesk." It's often a flag for the very lowest IT jobs, rather than the highest.
Can confirm... this is the title given to me because they wanted someone over the current IT Manager. It is a joke... I would have much preferred System Admin or IT Generalist.
-
@coliver What they call you you probably can't control, but what you call yourself you can. I don't put my director title on my resume, I just put something practical instead.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver What they call you you probably can't control, but what you call yourself you can. I don't put my director title on my resume, I just put something practical instead.
So what would be a more effective title? I have one report but do pretty much everything related to IT (except web dev/marketing which this company thinks is an IT job).
-
@coliver that's tough, but not systems admin. That's a very specific role and if you are going to an SMB, they won't care, and if you are going to an enterprise they will and they will have expectations on what you were doing (full time operational management of servers, generally scores or them or more, hundreds being not uncommon in the US.)'
IT Generalist, LAN Admin, it's hard to say which titles will sound and look best and best reflect what you feel is the "focus" of your work.
-
Coming up with titles for generalists has been a major problem that we have been discussing here and elsewhere for quite a while. This ties in with the "What IT Needs" thread. We need industry standardization around generalist titles.
-
I think it has something to do with the fact that all IT people are weirdo losers
Actually my real thinking is that the field is so new that hiring managers don't know how to hire well for it.
-
@Nic said:
Actually my real thinking is that the field is so new that hiring managers don't know how to hire well for it.
That's a big factor. Even in 1994, when I was first doing IT work and not just development work, the term "IT" wasn't used yet. I'm sure someone used it, but it wasn't common. The system admin (of the one server that they had) was called an operator (SysOp) and that was it. The term IT didn't start appearing commonly till a few years later. By the late 1990s it was common and the idea of LANs at work was common in larger companies and everyone knew that that was the future.
So IT, as we know it more or less, is only twenty years old at a maximum and really is closer to fifteen years old!
-
I got my first job as "IT Manager" in 1998, IIRC.
-
By 1998 it was a common term to me. I think it was the ramp up to the Y2K "crisis" that took IT from a backwater concept to major headlines and from an obscure term to the common lexicon. I'd guess that 1996 was the big transition year, that was the year that Microsoft made their first serious business class OS and when the perception of technology in the workplace really started to change. It's when the idea of the LAN solidified. Before then the idea of a LAN was as "one of many" possibly approaches to the office computing environment. Before Windows NT 4 the idea of a single large server with everyone working from terminals was still a very real concept (and not like thin computing today - no networks at all.)
By 1996 it was clear that every business would eventually have a network and that networking was going to be a part of normal computing. Before then, people were not so sure.
